International Typographical Union

19 Cited authorities

Edison Co. v. Labor Board
305 U.S. 197 (1938) Cited 19,296 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that a Board order cannot be grounded in hearsay
Labor Board v. Laughlin
301 U.S. 1 (1937) Cited 1,499 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the National Labor Relations Act applied only to interstate commerce, and upholding its constitutionality on that basis
May Stores Co. v. Labor Board
326 U.S. 376 (1945) Cited 257 times
Requiring "a clear determination by the Board of an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act to protect the rights of employees generally"
Labor Board v. Fainblatt
306 U.S. 601 (1939) Cited 281 times
Upholding NLRA under Commerce Power
H.J. Heinz Co. v. Labor Board
311 U.S. 514 (1941) Cited 241 times 1 Legal Analyses
In H.J. Heinz Co. v. N.L.R.B., 311 U.S. 514, 61 S.Ct. 320, 85 L.Ed. 309 and Cox v. Gatliff Coal Co., D.C., 59 F. Supp. 882, affirmed 6 Cir., 152 F.2d 52, it was stated that the Act contemplated that a collective bargaining agreement be in writing.
Houston Texas Ry. v. United States
234 U.S. 342 (1914) Cited 372 times
Holding that the Interstate Commerce Commission could regulate intrastate railway rates to protect interstate commerce
Santa Cruz Co. v. Labor Board
303 U.S. 453 (1938) Cited 166 times
In Santa Cruz Fruit Packing Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 303 U.S. 453, 58 S.Ct. 656, 82 L.Ed. 954, the employer was engaged in California in the business of canning and packing fruit and vegetables, and 37% of its pack was, by the employer, shipped out of California and sold in other States and foreign countries.
Labor Board v. Bradford Dyeing Assn
310 U.S. 318 (1940) Cited 150 times
Construing "affecting commerce"
Labor Board v. Crompton Mills
337 U.S. 217 (1949) Cited 102 times
Holding unlawful unilateral changes significantly different from "any which the employer has proposed" during bargaining
Chicago Board of Trade v. Olsen
262 U.S. 1 (1923) Cited 170 times
In Chicago Board of Trade v. Olsen, 262 U.S. 1, 34, the Court said that Stafford v. Wallace presented the question whether the Secretary of Agriculture could prevent the abuse of exorbitant charges by commission men.

International Typographical Union

19 Cited authorities

Holding that a Board order cannot be grounded in hearsay

Holding that the National Labor Relations Act applied only to interstate commerce, and upholding its constitutionality on that basis

Requiring "a clear determination by the Board of an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act to protect the rights of employees generally"

Upholding NLRA under Commerce Power

In H.J. Heinz Co. v. N.L.R.B., 311 U.S. 514, 61 S.Ct. 320, 85 L.Ed. 309 and Cox v. Gatliff Coal Co., D.C., 59 F. Supp. 882, affirmed 6 Cir., 152 F.2d 52, it was stated that the Act contemplated that a collective bargaining agreement be in writing.

Holding that the Interstate Commerce Commission could regulate intrastate railway rates to protect interstate commerce

Construing "affecting commerce"

Holding unlawful unilateral changes significantly different from "any which the employer has proposed" during bargaining

In Chicago Board of Trade v. Olsen, 262 U.S. 1, 34, the Court said that Stafford v. Wallace presented the question whether the Secretary of Agriculture could prevent the abuse of exorbitant charges by commission men.